|
| Authored by: drewbenn on Friday, May 04 2012 @ 04:00 PM EDT |
Or, the reason they're not at an impasse on question 4 is because they didn't
need to answer it.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 04 2012 @ 04:04 PM EDT |
| n/t [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- maybe not - Authored by: YurtGuppy on Friday, May 04 2012 @ 06:09 PM EDT
- maybe not - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 11:35 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 04 2012 @ 09:08 PM EDT |
| And question 4 isn't at issue. So what can we infer from that? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 02:52 PM EDT |
There was never a real question of this. Android's packages
are laid out the same way Java's are. IF API's were
copyrightable (the assumption the judge gave the jury), then
a reasonable jury would be hard pressed not to find this to
be a violation.
The INTERESTING question is whether (even IF API's are
copyrightable) Google's copying does not amount to
infringement (de minimis, fair use, etc.) If that's the
case, the judge doesn't have to rule on API copyrightability
- even if they were copyrightable, no infringement on these
facts, so no need to make that piece of new law. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
